School & District Management

States’ Graduation Data Seen as Undercounting Dropouts

By Debra Viadero — June 23, 2005 4 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

A sharply worded report released June 23 takes states to task for calculating graduation rates in ways that it contends yield artificially low estimates of the nation’s dropout problem—and it upbraids federal education officials for letting them do it.

Read the full report, “Getting Honest About Grad Rates: How States Play the Numbers and Students Lose,” from the Education Trust.

“We’ve got to end this rampant dishonesty about graduation rates,” Kati Haycock, the director of the Education Trust, the Washington-based research and advocacy group that put together the report, said in a statement. “And it would sure help if the U.S. Department of Education stopped sitting on the sidelines and worked to put an end to these shameful practices.”

Under the federal No Child Left Behind Act, states were required in January to provide statewide graduation rates for the 2002-03 school year. But, according to the Education Trust’s study, three states—Alabama, Louisiana, and Massachusetts—did not report the data at all. Another seven states failed to break down the data, as required under the law, to show separate graduation rates for certain groups of students, such as those with disabilities, from low-income families, and from various racial and ethnic minorities.

While some states are developing better systems for tracking high school students, the study says, others have reported “implausibly high” graduation rates or used “ludicrous” methods to calculate them. One example the report points to is New Mexico, where state officials report a 89 percent graduation rate. The report says the state arrives at that figure by calculating the number of high school seniors who receive diplomas.

“This ignores entirely the number of students who dropped out in the 9th, 10th, and 11th grades,” the report says.

Likewise, it says, North Carolina’s 97 percent graduation rate is based on the number of graduates who received their diplomas in four years or less, a formula that excludes dropouts altogether.

A spokesman for the Council of Chief State School Officers, a Washington-based group that represents state superintendents, said most states don’t have tracking systems that are sophisticated enough to yield solid graduation-rate information. Experts agree that the most accurate way to track such rates would be to follow a cohort of entering 9th graders throughout their high school careers, regardless of where they go. Only a handful of states, though, can track students who disappear from the enrollment rolls to determine whether they have transferred to other schools, entered alternative programs, or dropped out.

“We think it’s a serious mistake to make the assumption that states are playing with the numbers on graduation rates, when we don’t have common data sets to be able to gauge accurate graduation rates,” said Scott S. Montgomery, the CCSSO’s chief of staff.

State Goals Called Too Low

A major part of the problem, the Education Trust report argues, is that the federal Education Department gives the states only broad outlines on how to calculate graduation rates and allows them to choose among several methods.

Susan Aspey, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said federal officials put together a study group in 2003 to give states guidance on the best interim methods for calculating graduation rates, to use while states are building better data-collection systems. That guidance has yet to be issued.

“We are very concerned that the graduation data doesn’t accurately reflect what’s happening in the states,” Ms. Aspey said in a statement.

Equally troubling, though, according to the Education Trust, are the low graduation-rate goals states have set for themselves under the No Child Left Behind law. The 3-year-old law imposes a two-edged requirement on schools: They must show progress educating all students to state standards in reading and mathematics, and also meet state goals for improving graduation rates. The report notes, however, that 34 states have set graduation-rate targets that are lower than the rates they reported earlier this year.

Also, two states—New Mexico and South Carolina—have said schools do not have to make any annual improvements in their graduation rates to comply with the law. In California, Louisiana, Maryland, and North Carolina, schools are only required to improve their graduation rates by one-tenth of 1 percent per year. Schools in 31 other states can meet their goals for adequate yearly progress under the law if they make any gains at all in raising graduation rates, according to the report.

The report warns that the methods states are using for counting graduates, most of which produce higher graduation rates than estimations that independent analysts have made using different calculations, could be masking the true extent of dropout problems across the country.

“If we want high schools that truly serve all students and prepare them for work, college, and life,” the report concludes, “we first need to know how many students are leaving school altogether.”

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Professional Development Webinar
Grow Leaders, Keep Teachers: Leadership Development as a Staffing Strategy
Find out how to turn leadership development into a staffing strategy and grow your next generation of school leaders from within.
Content provided by Frontline Education
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Teaching Webinar
Closing the Practice Gap: Essential Insights for Leaders
Three instructional experts will share strategies for making students’ reading and math practice more engaging and impactful this year.
Content provided by Renaissance
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
School & District Management Webinar
The Principal's Role in Collective Efficacy and Student Outcomes
Learn practical strategies that help principals translate their confidence into stronger collective teacher efficacy and student outcomes.
Content provided by Otus

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

School & District Management Who Inspires You? Nominate Them For Leaders To Learn From
Nominations are due at midnight Sept. 8, 2026. The next cohort of honorees will be recognized in February 2027.
3 min read
tk
The 2026 EdWeek Leaders To Learn From.
Education Week
School & District Management From Our Research Center 75% of Educators Expect Student Behavior to Be a Challenge This Year. What Else?
Students themselves are top of mind, even as districts face financial headwinds and broader uncertainty.
6 min read
Image of a person on a unicycle juggling icons representing: computers, calendar, planning documents, financial documents, desk with lunch bag and coffee mug.
Robert Neubecker for Education Week
School & District Management Opinion Ed. Leaders Must Stop Getting Distracted by the Shiniest New Idea. Here’s How
Effective school leadership depends on slowing down, asking better questions, and reflecting.
4 min read
shutterstock 2421821495
Shutterstock
School & District Management Q&A School Leaders Face More Parental Threats Than Teachers
Parental violence went up after the pandemic, directed most towards school administrators.
5 min read
Front view of a group of wooden cubes with icons representing persons. The main focus is on an angry person who has a cube over his head with a thought bubble full of insults
Education Week + iStock/Getty